A splash quite unnoticed


According to Brueghel
when Icarus fell
it was spring

a farmer was ploughing
his field
the whole pageantry

of the year was
awake tingling

the edge of the sea
with itself

sweating in the sun
that melted
the wings’ wax

off the coast
there was

a splash quite unnoticed
this was
Icarus drowning


William Carlos Williams – 1883-1963

I think you would agree with me that it would be a herculean task to respond to any video on youtube that is out there that requires one.  Addressing the flood would make a considered reaction almost impossible.

However, sometimes I feel that a response is required. And I felt this need regarding a video called Why they don’t tell you about Hitler’s “Shrinking Markets ‘.    The main reason for my unease with this video is that the maker of this video, a man who calls himself TIK, schools people on what history is. If you claim to know what history is, then leading by example would be a thing for sure.  The proof of the pudding is in the eating, though. So how edible is his course?

The case

It warrants to represent TIK’s argument in a proper manner. So let me lay out his case for you, so you can both check that I got it right and also understand the whole of his argument.

There are two ways to represent his argument. In a (very) short way and in the full way.

The short argument

Hitler was a socialist.

The long argument

They, the (Marxist-)Socialists who invaded the state controlled universities and schools since the Cold War era, if not earlier, want to prevent you from knowing about the shrinking markets because then they would have to tell you that Hitler was a socialist and that socialism, which means total state control of the economy and people – coupled with his racism caused the holocaust.
(note: I updated this long description to better reflect what was said on August the tenth)

I assume that you will agree with me that the short argument would be the easiest to respond to. The full argument is so complex in nature and raises so many additional questions that any response  will be very long indeed. So let me address the short version at the moment. That is, let’s see how TIK approaches this argument that Hitler was a socialist as a historian.

Screenshot - 7_9_2019 , 10_19_08 AM (1) Why they don't tell you about Hitler's _Shrinking Markets_ problem - YouTube - Opera

Socialism according to IEP

Before taking a look at TIK I want to point to another source first.  The reason is that the problem with the short argument is that we need to find a definition of socialism.  For this I make uses of the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy(IEP)   The IEP is a peer-reviewed encyclopedia. The reason I do so it not for the most obious reason, that is to show it conflicts with the definition that TIK gives, but rather to point out that there is no agreement even among socialists disagree on how socialism is to be realized. The IEP  gives the following definitions on socialism as an economic system and an ideology.

A socialist economy features social rather than private ownership of the means of production. 

Socialist ideology asserts the moral and economic superiority of an economy with these features.

But it adds a cautionary remark:

How, precisely, socialist concepts like social ownership and planning should be realized in practice is a matter of dispute among socialists. 

IEP points out that:

Considered as an economic system, socialism is best understood in contrast with capitalism.

Capitalism designates an economic system with all of the following features:

  1. The means of production are, for the most part, privately owned;
  2. People own their labor power, and are legally free to sell it to (or withhold it from) others;
  3. Production is generally oriented towards profit rather than use: firms produce not in the first instance to satisfy human needs, but rather to make money; and
  4. Markets play a major role in allocating inputs to commodity production and determining the amount and direction of investment.

An economic system is socialist only if it rejects feature 1, private ownership of the means of production in favor of public or social ownership. But must an economic system reject any of features 2-4 to count as socialist, or is rejection of private property sufficient as well as necessary? Here, socialists disagree

My point here is to show that even if there is agreement about the fundamental concepts of socialism, there is disagreement about how to realize it. And it is in particular important as we soon will see.

Socialism according to TIK

Now let’s have a look at how TIK defines the concept for us.

Socialism: you get money for free when you murder and steal from the bourgeoisie(or jews)(2:55).

Socialism: the technical definition is: the socialization of the means of production(4:14).

Socialism is the state control of the economy(8:03).

(Real)Socialism is the state(8:44)(23:09)

The true nature of socialism – total state control of the economy and people – totalitarianism(19:24)

The reason why I have listed all the definitions in is because TIK uses these different ones to make his argument.  I cannot find where TIK takes his definitions from as he doesn’t quote any sources. He names two books: Basic Economics and Economics in One Lesson. But neither Sowell nor Hazlitt define socialism. Nor do they refer to socialism in the way he does(thievery and murder for example), even though Sowell points out some of the traits of Socialist states, to which he never says that these traits are exclusive to those states.

Screenshot - 7_9_2019 , 9_55_36 AM (1) Why they don't tell you about Hitler's _Shrinking Markets_ problem - YouTube - Opera

It is perhaps of interest in this context to give a quote by Hazlitt. The underscore is mine.

When analyzing fallacies, I have thought it still less advisable to mention particular names than in giving credit.
To do so would have required special justice to each writer
criticized, with exact quotations, account taken of the particular emphasis he places on this point or that, the qualifications he makes, his personal ambiguities, inconsistencies,
and so on I hope, therefore, that no one will be too disappointed at the absence of such names as Karl Marx, Thorstein Veblen, Major Douglas, Lord Keynes, Professor Alvin
Hansen and others in these pages. The object of this book
is not to expose the special errors of particular writers, but
economic errors in their most frequent, widespread or influential form. 

Economics in One Lesson, page IX(1946 version).

In other words: where TIK uses Marx and Keynes, Hazlitt declines to do so because he knows very well that he would have to address each of them extensively. Sowell refers to Keynes a few times(six results on two pages). Marx is mentioned more. Hitler is hardly mentioned by either, and not in the context of socialism.

I supply this to point out that TIK doesn’t quote the sources he bases himself upon and that two books he mentions do not supply the definitions he uses. It follows that his definition must be his own. And his definition is has quite a certainty: socialism is the state. In others words: where IEP defines that socialist have a dispute.. TIK offers certainty. Unsourced, unfounded and unsupported certainty.

TIK vs the rest of the world

Now let me be clear here; TIK can, without restraint, claim that Hitler was a socialist. However, to make his argument TIK has to come up with a definition and one that at least most people can accept. Why? Because otherwise we cannot communicate concepts. If you define green as red and do not communicate that you do so, you will be in a traffic accident in no time and if you have followers believe the same, they will be too.  We have to agree on definition not only to communicate, but also to make the arguments work. And you have to stick to that definition.

Screenshot - 7_9_2019 , 10_15_47 AM (1) Why they don't tell you about Hitler's _Shrinking Markets_ problem - YouTube - Opera

And here is where TIK sinks his own boat. To argue his case he gives at the beginning of his video a list of  people whom he calls Marxist-Socialists. These people, so Tik explains,  all believed in shrinking markets.. just as Hitler did. Then when he defines socialism as state control of the economy or, to drive the nail home, the total control of the people and the economy, Marxist-Socialists by this definition are no longer socialists. As IEP states: Not only will communism (unlike socialism) do away with class, material scarcity, and occupational specialization, it will also do away with the state.  In other words. Marxist-Socialists cannot therefore be used to support his argument regarding socialists. He has refuted himself.

His arguments are shaky in another way too, as he when he defines socialism as totalitarianism. In other words: socialism has become synonymous to totalitarianism.  If socialism is the same as totalitarianism then it has lost any meaning as a separate concept. In other words: anyone striving for totalitarianism has now become a socialist too and any socialist has become a totalitarian. It might again be important that in this TIK doesn’t support what he says with sources. Again, he must be using his own definitions.

You could of course argue that socialism and totalitarianism share common traits, but then you have to argue that point where they differ. Or you can argue that socialism is a subset of totalitarianism, but then you have to argue that point. TIK does neither. He makes a blanket statement by making the one equal the other.

Another way he digs a hole to fall in himself is by defining socialism as the state. Again this includes a lot of people who support the idea of a state but who might not see themselves as socialist. Take conservatives. And again, he doesn’t name any sources.

Screenshot - 7_9_2019 , 11_28_01 AM (1) Why they don't tell you about Hitler's _Shrinking Markets_ problem - YouTube - Opera

TIK further expands on this idea in his slide where he equates group to tyranny and the individual to liberty.  And he explains this via etymology: Public is the same as the State. And the group is the same as tyranny.

Screenshot - 7_9_2019 , 10_50_35 AM (1) Why they don't tell you about Hitler's _Shrinking Markets_ problem - YouTube - OperaScreenshot - 7_9_2019 , 10_50_50 AM (1) Why they don't tell you about Hitler's _Shrinking Markets_ problem - YouTube - Opera

Now this creates another problem. Just like Marxist-Socialists are no longer socialist, anyone who strives for the common good now supports tyranny by definition.  As he says: there  And would it be superfluous again to point out that he doesn’t name any sources for his claims?

The result of his redefinition of terms is now that some people are no longer socialists, while a lot of other people have become socialists.

The point

To drive this point home: TIK is totally free to claim that Hitler was a socialist. My post is not to respond to that claim.

Most don’t even know the meaning of the terms, and when, you point them out – backed by a host of sources and examples from their own literature(actual evidence) you get told that you don’t know what you are talking about(23:35).

As pointed out: TIK’s  definitions are totally his own and keeps being changed by him during his 28 minutes of diatribe.  He hasn’t presented any ‘host of sources’ to support his definitions. TIK refers to books by Sowell and Hazlitt, neither used in his video, nor does he illustrate that they support what he says. The  Marxist-Socialists cannot be used according to his own definitions as they are no longer socialists. He fails to make a coherent argument by playing fast and loose with definitions and failing to source them.


Vidal (loftily): As far as I’m concerned, the only pro- or crypto-Nazi I can think of is yourself. Failing that—

Smith: Let’s, let’s not call names—

Vidal: Failing that, I can only say that—

Buckley (snarling, teeth bared): Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock you in your goddam face, and you’ll stay plastered—

Gore Vidal vs William F. Buckley 

And then this final thing. What to say about a man who complains about his ideas being suppressed, but showing himself all too eager to hamstring the free exchange of ideas? If you deny that Hitler is a socialist, you deny the holocaust is the kind of argument that has no place in history.  TIK goes even a step further. He claims that socialists actually promote the holocaust(22:06).  History works when it allows for the free exchange of ideas. TIK has done himself a great disservice, he shows himself not to be the historian he claims to be.

The irony

TIK mentions a world wide socialist conspiracy to dominate the narrative, but doesn’t name the people involved, nor explains how it works on a global level, nor how it works  for privately owned  universities or for countries run by non-socialist governments for decades. He never supports anything he says.  But most ironical is it that he references men as David Glantz and Rainer Zitelmann in t and his other videos, both whom have studied at the same state controlled universities. But then I guess, checking his sources isn’t his strong suit.

David Glantz
Born in Port ChesterNew York, Glantz received degrees in history from the Virginia Military Institute and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and is a graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff CollegeDefense Language Institute, Institute for Russian and Eastern European Studies, and U.S. Army War College.

Rainer Zitelmann
Zitelmann studied history and political sciences at the Darmstadt University of Applied Sciences and completed his doctorate in 1986 under Prof. Dr. Karl Otmar Freiherr von Aretin with the grade of “summa cum laude”, the subject being the goals of Hitler’s social, economic and interior policies.

Movie review: Er ist wieder da.

When Hitler wakes up in Berlin in 2014 he is confronted by a thriving
modern Germany that, much to his surprise and regret, has not been destroyed
in the Götterdämmerung that he had staged at the end of World War II
and which he thought was the only thing his country  and people deserved for
failing him, their Fuhrer, and destiny.

Hitler, seen as a satirical comedian, soon rises to national fame as a
freelance reporter sniffs him out and sells him as a gimmick to a
commercial television station who use the mass murderer to prop up
their popularity figures. The internet then does the rest.

The movie is at times slow and, I must say, boring, unlike the
trailers, five of them, that are made with fast edits and snappy
satire. The trailers in no way represent the whole movie, as the
situations are far and in between and only at times, mostly in the
second half, does the movie gain the same speed and snappy witticism
that the trailers have.

The big message in the movie is that if the fear of foreigners gets the
better of the average German, numbed by commercial television,
democracy will give a new Hitler another chance to rise to power again.
This comes a bit towards the end as most of the movie is about Hitler
being seen as a funny figure that nobody takes serious and just laughs
at or makes selfies with.

There are some brilliant moments in this movie. One is were the bunker
scene from der Untergang is replayed scene by scene, but with the staff
of the commercial TV station replacing Hitler and his circle.

Another is where they show how Hitler becomes viral on the internet and
YouTube, which is where the movie shines with fast edits and visual
tricks and  which shows exactly the emptiness of it all as I experience it
nowadays: it doesn’t matter what it is about as long as it gets you the viewers. It is regurgitating words.

A great scene is where Hitler looks at a mountain range, comments on
how beautiful it is and then throws an empty coffee cup into the grass.
He pollutes that which he finds pretty. It is Hitler used as a mirror
for all the people who do the same, but now that Hitler does it it
gets meaning. This has to be placed next to his remark that the only
party he would ally with is the Green Party, because they value nature
and thus they value Germany.

We have some snappy comments on the current day German politicians, but
this is as temporary as anything as most of them will be nobody’s in
ten years time, perhaps with the exception of Merkel.

It also comments on the emptiness of commercial television and
shows us the silly ultra right wing fringe groups who are mostly a sad
bunch and no threat to society except for some of the numskulls being
pretty violent.

But the major flaw of this movie is a serious one: it skirts around all
of the big issues. The problems with Islam gets nary a mention. Only at
the end we suddenly get to see that Islam exists and even Wilders gets
injected and the latter in such a cowardly way it offended me, for even
though I am not a supporter of him and his ideas I think it is unfair
to show him as a kind of new day Hitler.  Also
unmentioned is the fragile economy and the big millstone of the
European financial situation that hangs around the neck of Germany. In
fact Europe and the European Union hardly gets a mention at all.

This is all the more surprising given the fact that Hitler rose to
power partly because of the global financial crisis of 1929. But the
movie doesn’t even mention this, but instead harps on about Germans
with their petty problems with foreigners and the threat that this
might pose to democracy because that is what might get a new Hitler

But what irks me the most is this totally warped vision of modern
Germany that this movie offers. If there is one country(I can think of
another country: Japan) that is unlikely to ever get a new Hitler
elected it is probably Germany. The Germans of today are vastly more
liberal, vastly more democratic and far less struggling with their past
than they were back in the 30’s where the average German was a
conservative, disliked the Weimar republic(it was more or less
imposed), in fear of both right wing and left wing violence in a
country in turmoil because of a deep financial crisis and suffering
from a post war trauma(a surrender that never truly sprang from a defeat,
unlike World War II: in which it was made sure that it was a real
defeat: hence unconditional surrender).

Hitler wasn’t elected because Germans hated Jews. Hitler was elected
because of the chaos and the promise that he would end it. And he rose
to power not because he was democratically elected, but because key
people, politicians and business men, very anti democratic people at
that, supported him by perverting the democracy they hated in the
misbegotten idea that they could control him, profit from him or
otherwise gain an advantage or even, yes even, replace the republic with a system they preferred.

This is totally at odds with modern day Germany and somehow
arguing that a new Hitler might arise because modern day Germans have
issues with foreigners is a silly notion that insults a country and its
inhabitants and then to compound this by totally ignoring all the big
issues that actually might cause a Hitler to rise makes it a super
silly nonsense movie that has no relevance to anything and can only be
valued as being slightly funny but otherwise… pointless.





“Gott mit uns”(God with us)


I can’t help it to  write this post. I resisted several times and I even have a complete rant hidden as post someplace that addresses this issue, but I decided against posting it.

But now it happened again!

“What is the issue?,” you might ask.

It is the use of the “Gott mit uns” argument.

The “Gott mit uns” argument usually pops up in discussions between atheists and theists. It is an extension of Godwin’s law: the longer a discussion on the internet last, the higher the chance that Hitler or Nazis will be mentioned.  And Hitler is a hot button.

The argument comes down to this: and the Germans(or the German army) under Hitler used “Gott mit uns” on their belt buckles(which means that he supported Christianity or was a Christian, but certainly not an atheist) In an slightly less charged discussion it might also mean: for any argument you have that he is an atheist(and therefore by association atheists are evil) we have an argument that he is a Christian(and therefore by association they are evil).

I have heard Matt Dillahunty use this example twice(once in his debate with Father Jacobse and once on the ACA podcast) and now I hear it repeated by Jacquelyn Glenn(1).

I think they usually have good arguments, but I would like people to stop using this argument because it speaks of a lack of knowledge of history of Germany, Hitler and the Second world war and therefore illustrates a lack of insight. And here is the reason why.

“Gott mit uns’ was a slogan displayed on the buckle of the privates and soldiers of the regular German army( and not on that of the SS for instance, who used: Meine  Ehre heisst treue: my honor is loyalty).  The slogan was used by the Germans under the Empire(1870-1918), during the Weimar Republic(1918-1934) and even by Prussia before the German unification.  In other words, it wasn’t implemented as part of a conscious decision by Hitler but part of a tradition of the German and Prussian army(2)
Now you might say, by not removing it, he supported it, but this speaks of a lack of knowledge of German history. For one when Hitler went on his program of rearmament in 1933 he needed the German army to make it happen. In addition Hitler came to power through a series of power deals, most specifically with the conservatives which were well linked with the German army, industry and with the churches. In addition, Hitler did not attain full dictatorial powers until after after the burning of the Reichstag, the death of von Hindenburg, the president of Germany and one of the leading exponents of the Germany army, and the elimination of the SA.  And those who are informed about the German army, know Hitler did not acquire full nominal control of the German army until the removal of von Blomberg in 1938(3).
We basically have no idea what Hitler’s vision was on the buckle. You could claim he supported Christianity because of it, but you could equally state that he was against it because the SS had a different slogan. Against the latter views speaks for that the SS slogan was not introduced by Hitler, but by Himmler and the SS had nothing to do with the army, even though the waffen-ss became a rival of the army during the war.

I hope that the above will convince people to be cautious when using the argument that the belt buckles of the German soldiers say anything about Hitler’s religious convictions. It is a small point, but it makes me cringe every time when I hear people refer to it as if it is a proof in one way or another.